5.  The applicant was born in 1925 and lives in Novi Sad, Serbia.
6.  The former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (“the SFRY”) provided for twofold pension insurance – military and civil. The pension rights of military personnel were regulated and secured through the federal authorities (Article 281 § 6 of the 1974 Constitution of the SFRY). The members of the JNA, the armed forces of the former SFRY, paid their contributions to and received their pensions from the JNA Fund based in Belgrade. This was the only pension fund existing at the federal level. On the other hand, each republic had its own pension fund [set up] for the payment of civil pensions (for more information see Janković v. Croatia (dec.), no. 43440/98, ECHR 2000‑X).
7.  Following the dissolution of the SFRY, the JNA Fund generally stopped paying pensions to pensioners from the newly established states, and in the majority of cases the newly established states took over paying pensions to their citizens (see Janković, cited above, and Kudumija v. Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia, and Remenović and Mašović v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, (dec.), nos. 28233/08 et al., 4 June 2013). In 1994, pursuant to the Yugoslav Army Act, the JNA Fund was transformed into the Fund for Social Insurance of Military Personnel of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (succeeded in 2006 by Serbia; “the Military Fund”).
8.  The issue of the former military pensioners remained unresolved between the newly formed states and was thus one of the subjects dealt with in the Agreement on Succession Issues. On 29 June 2001 Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia[1], the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and Slovenia signed the Agreement on Succession Issues (“the Succession Agreement“), which entered into force on 2 June 2004. Annex E dealt with pensions. It was based on the principle of acquired rights, in that rights acquired under one system must be acknowledged and respected in another. Under Annex E each successor State assumed responsibility for the regular payment of pensions to its citizens who had been civil or military employees of the former SFRY, irrespective of their current residence, if those pensions were financed from federal funds. In the case of military pensions, if a person was a national of more than one republic of the former SFRY, the pension should be paid by the State where that person resided.
9.  The applicant served as a military officer in the JNA until 1973, when he retired. On 11 June 1973 he was granted a pension by the JNA Fund. At that time the applicant was living in Split, Croatia. The pension continued to be paid to him from the JNA Fund following Croatia’s declaration of independence in 1991.
10.  On 23 November 1993 the applicant requested the discontinuation of payment of the pension from the JNA Fund, since he had been granted a pension in Croatia in accordance with the relevant Croatian legislation at the time, starting from 1 December 1993. On 8 December 1993 the JNA Fund stopped paying the applicant’s pension.
11.  By 18 January 2002 the applicant had taken up residence in Novi Sad, Serbia.
12.  On 31 March 2004 the Split branch of the Croatian Pension Fund stopped paying his pension, because he no longer had residence in Croatia. It held that the payment of pensions abroad was possible under the relevant domestic law only if there was an international treaty or a reciprocal agreement, which did not exist in respect of Serbia.
13.  On 18 January 2005 that decision was upheld by the competent second-instance administrative body and the applicant was advised to request payment of his pension from the Military Fund in Belgrade.
14. On 11 November 2004 the applicant lodged a request with the Military Fund for the reinstatement of payment of his pension with effect from 1 April 2004.
15.  On 11 March 2005 the Military Fund refused the request finding that, according to section 8(2) of the Decree on the Pension Rights of Military Personnel 1994 and section 82(4) of the Pension and Disability Insurance Act 2003 (see paragraphs 28 and 29 below), the applicant had the right to choose a pension fund only once, and he had already used this right by transferring his pension to Croatia in 1993.
16.  On 31 May 2005 the Appeals Commission of the Military Fund (“the Appeals Commission”) upheld that decision. On 17 June 2005 the applicant initiated proceedings for judicial review before the Court of Serbia and Montenegro.
17.  On 31 January 2008 the Supreme Court (following the transformation of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro and ensuing judicial reform) quashed the decision of 31 May 2005 and remitted the case to the Appeals Commission for reconsideration, advising it to take the Succession Agreement into consideration.
18.  On 15 August 2008 the Appeals Commission rejected the applicant’s appeal finding that, regardless of the Succession Agreement, the applicant was not entitled to a pension in Serbia. It again relied on section 8(2) of the Decree on the Pension Rights of Military Personnel 1994 and section 82 of the Pension and Disability Insurance Act 2003, noting that at the moment of the entry into force of the Succession Agreement the applicant had had residence in Croatia and had been a beneficiary of the Croatian Fund. The Appeals Commission thus found that the applicant was expected to move to Croatia and re-establish residence there, so that he could re-apply for a pension from the Croatian Fund.
19.  On 9 September 2008 the applicant initiated proceedings for judicial review before the Supreme Court. On three occasions thereafter he urged the court to decide on his case and on 22 May 2009 he wrote to the president of the Supreme Court urging her to give his case priority treatment, in view of his age and the importance of the case for him, since it concerned his very subsistence.
20.  On 8 October 2009 the Supreme Court quashed the decision of 15 August 2008, as the Appeals Commission had failed to provide proper reasoning for the assertion that the applicant was only entitled to request the transfer of his pension once.
21.  On 30 October 2009 the Chairman of the Appeals Commission made an official note in relation to the applicant’s request, noting that within sixty days a decision should be drafted allowing his appeal and ordering the Military Fund to recognise his right to a pension. A further note dated 7 December 2009 and also signed by the Chairman of the Appeals Commission suggests that staff members of the Fund, a certain M. and J., had refused to prepare the draft decision as instructed by him, as they considered that the applicant did not have the right to enjoy a pension in Serbia.
22.  On 30 December 2009 the Appeals Commission again rejected the applicant’s appeal and instructed the applicant to move to Croatia. It found that, since the applicant had had residence in Croatia on 2 June 2004 when the Succession Agreement entered into force, the Croatian Fund was solely responsible for the payment of his pension.
23.  On 17 December 2010 the Administrative Court upheld that decision, applying the Pension and Disability Insurance Act. It did not respond to the applicant’s claim that the Succession Agreement had precedence over the domestic laws and by-laws or to his claim that he had established residence in Serbia prior to the entry into force of the said agreement.
24.  On 28 January 2011 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law (zahtev za preispitivanje sudske odluke). On 4 February 2011 the Supreme Court of Cassation rejected his appeal.
25.  On 8 February 2011 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint. It would appear that these proceedings are still pending.
26.  On 1 August 2012, following the changes in the pension system (see paragraph 29 below), the Novi Sad branch of the Fund for Pension and Disability Insurance of the Republic of Serbia, acting of its own motion, established the applicant’s right to receive a pension from that Fund with effect from 1 January 2012. The relevant part of the decision reads:
“It was established that
- ... Blagoja Pejčić was granted a military pension by a decision of 1 January 1973 ...
- payment was effected by the Military Fund in Belgrade until 30 November 1993, when it was terminated at Blagoja Pejčić’s request in order for him to be able to receive a pension from the Croatian Fund, as he had residence in Split, Croatia, at the time.
- the Croatian Fund paid his pension until 1 April 2004, when it was terminated because [Blagoja Pejčić] had moved to Serbia.
- Blagoja Pejčić is a national of the Republic of Serbia and has residence on the territory of the Republic of Serbia.
In view of the established facts, it is concluded that the conditions for establishing the payment of his pension with effect from 1 January 2012 are met ...”